Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Consort diagram illustrating the search process.
Tables
- Table 1.
Study characteristics
Exercise prescription Author, year Study type Population [age (years), body mass (kg), BMI (kg.m−2) = mean (SD)] Type Duration (weeks) Frequency (sessions/week) Protocol and outcomes (I: intervention; C: control) 1 Fairey et al., 2003 (29) RCT T: breast cancer; n = 53; age = [I] 59.0 (5.0) [C] 58.0 (6.0); body mass = [I] 78.1 (20.4) [C] 79.4 (16.4); BMI = [I] 29.4 (7.4) [C] 29.1 (6.1) A 15 3 I: Cycling at 70–75% 
O2 peak for 15 minutes; increasing by 5 minutes/3 weeks to a maximum of 35 minutes. Preceded and followed by 5 minutes of cycling at 50% O2 peak; C: No formal intervention; supervised: yes; outcomes: IGF1, IGF2, IGFBP1, IGFBP2, IGFBP3 [ELISA]2 Schmitz et al., 2005 (35)a RCT T: breast cancer; n = 85; age = [I] 53.3 (8.7); [C] 52.8 (7.6); body mass = [I] 69.2 (2.2) [C] 69.0 (2.2); BMI = [I] 25.9 (0.7) [C] 25.8 (0.7) R 26 2 I: 26-week progressive resistance training program; 9 exercises, 3 sets, 8–12 reps completed at 8–10RM (upper body exercises were progressed as able depending on lymphoedema risk and symptoms); C: Delayed treatment; supervised: yes; outcomes: IGF1, IGF2, IGFBP1, IGFBP2, IGFBP3 [ELISA] 3 Irwin et al., 2009 (31) RCT T: breast cancer; n = 75; age = [I] 56.4 (9.5) [C] 55.6 (7.7); body mass = [I] 81.0 (16.8) [C] 79.3 (21.3); BMI = [I] 30.4 (6.0) [C] 30.1 (7.4) A 26 5 I: 15 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity (walking) progressing to 30 minutes per session by week 5; C: Usual care; supervised: yes; outcomes: IGF1, IGFBP3 [ELISA] 4 Galvao et al., 2008 (30) SGI T: prostate cancer; n = 10; age = 70.3 (8.3) R 20 2 I: Progressive resistance training program; 10 weeks of hydraulic machine–based exercises followed by 10 weeks of isotonic resistance exercises; 10-week blocks distributed as: weeks 1 and 2 = 2 × 12RM, weeks 3 and 4 = 3 × 10RM, weeks 5, 6, and 7 = 3 × 8RM, weeks 8, 9, and 10 = 4 × 6RM; supervised: yes; outcomes: IGF1 [ELISA] 5 Janelsins et al., 2011 (32) RCT T: breast cancer; n = 19; age = [I] 54.3 (10.6); [C] 52.7 (6.7); body mass = [I] 66.7 (14.9) [C] 66.7 (9.8); BMI = [I] 24.9 (5.8) [C] 25.0 (4.4) TC 12 3 I: 60 minutes of Yang-style Tai Chi Chuan (first 15 moves of the long-form Yang-style Tai Chi Chuan). Session included 10-minute warm up, 40 minutes of exercise (Tai Chi), and 10 minutes of breathing, imagery, and meditation; C: Psychosocial therapy; supervised: yes; outcomes: IGF1, IGFBP1, IGFBP3 [IRMA] 6 Lee et al., 2013 (33) SGI T: colorectal cancer; n = 17 (7 women); age = 55.1 (13.7); body mass = 61.3 (10.6); BMI = 23.1 (3.4) A and R 12 NR I: Program to increase weekly physical activity to 18 MET hours/week after 6 weeks and to 27 MET hours/week after 12 weeks; combination of aerobic exercise (walking, cycling) and resistance training; supervised: home-based; outcomes: IGF1, IGFBP1, IGFBP3 [ELISA] 7 Santa Mina et al., 2013 (34) RCT T: prostate cancer; n = 26; age = [A] 70.6 (8.1) [R] 73.6 (8.8); body mass = [A] 86.2 (9.9) [R] 80.3 (13.2); BMI = [A] 28.5 (3.3) [R] 27.4 (5.0) A or R 26 5 I (A): 60 minutes of aerobic exercise at 60%–80% HRR; I (R): 60 minutes of progressive resistance training; 10 exercises targeting major muscle groups; 2–3 sets, 8–12 repetitions at 60%–80% 1RM; supervised: home-based; outcomes: IGF1, IGFBP3 [ELISA] Abbreviations: A, aerobic exercise group; BMI, body mass index; C, control group; HR, heart rate; HRR, heart rate reserve; I, intervention group; IRMA, immunoradiometric assay; kg, kilogram; MET, metabolic equivalent; n, number; NR, not reported; R, resistance training group; Reps, repetitions; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SGI, single-group intervention study; T, cancer type; TC, Tai Chi Chuan;
O2, volume of oxygen consumed; RM, repetition maximum.↵aOnly RCT component of the study by Schmitz et al. (35) is included in the analysis.
- Table 2.
Effects of exercise interventions on IGF1 and IGF2
Within group analysis Between groups analysis Author, year Baseline [1] [Mean (SD)] 1st endpoint [2] [Mean (SD)] 2nd endpoint [3] [Mean (SD)] Mean change [Mean (SD)] Δ percentage P value P value IGF1 (ng.mL−1) 1 Fairey et al., I: 67.4 (29.1) 62.5 (23.9) NA −4.9 (10.7) −7.3% NA P = 0.045 2003 (29) C: 70.0 (21.5) 72.6 (24.8) NA 2.5 (14.8) 3.6% NA 2 Schmitz et al., I: 172.9 (11.6) 181.2 (11.6) NA 8.3 (6.3) 4.8% NA P = 0.16 2005 (35)a C: 194.3 (11.4) 190.3 (11.4) NA −4.0 (6.1) −2.0% NA 3 Irwin et al., I: 213.3 (12.6) 207.1 (11.2) NA −7.4 (6.0) −2.9% NA P = 0.026 2009 (31)b C: 232.3 (18.7) 243.7 (18.5) NA 12.7 (6.4) 4.8% NA 4 Galvao et al., I: 158.9 (19.4) 161.4 (16.1) 156.3 (14.3) NA (1–2) 1.6% P > 0.05 NA 2008 (30)b (1–3) −1.6% (2–3) −3.2% 5 Janelsins et al., I: 156.8 (19.6) 129.5 (43.8) NA −27.3 (45.1) −17.4% NA P > 0.05 2011 (32) C: 111.8 (82.6) 95.1 (58.7) NA −16.6 (66.5) −14.9% NA 6 Lee et al., 2013 (33) I: 135.4 (60.2) 159.5 (62.1) NA NA 17.8% P = 0.007 NA 7 Santa Mina I (A): 159.6 (55.2) 169.7 (67.5) 161.9 (45.9) NA (1–2) 6.3% NA (1–2) P = 0.129 et al., 2013 (34) (1–3) 1.4% (1–3) P = 0.199 (2–3) −4.6% I (R): 159.1 (51.2) 138.3 (42.6) 146.4 (49.5) NA (1–2) −13.1% (1–2) P ≤ 0.05 NA (1–3) −8.0% (2–3) 5.9% IGF2 (ng.mL−1) 1 Fairey et al., I: 824.9 (155.5) 805.0 (139.9) NA −19.9 (97.1) −2.4% NA P = 0.101 2003 (29) C: 714.5 (148.9) 735.3 (152.4) NA 20.9 (80.5) 2.9% NA 2 Schmitz et al., I: 898.0 (34.9) 871.8 (34.9) NA −26.2 (16.7) −3.0% NA P = 0.02 2005 (35)a C: 891.3 (34.4) 919.5 (34.4) NA 28.3 (16.3) 3.2% NA - Table 3.
Effects of exercise interventions on IGFBP1, IGFBP2, and IGFBP3
Within group analysis Between groups analysis Author, year Baseline [1] [Mean (SD)] 1st endpoint [2] [Mean (SD)] 2nd endpoint [3] [Mean (SD)] Mean change [Mean (SD)] Δ percentage P value P value IGFBP1 (ng.mL−1) 1 Fairey et al., 2003 (29) I: 47.5 (32.3) 53.2 (30.4) NA 5.6 (13.4) 12.0% NA P = 0.774 C: 48.2 (29.8) 52.4 (34.2) NA 4.2 (21.2) 8.7% NA 2 Schmitz et al., 2005 (35)a I: 36.9 (2.9) 34.7 (2.9) NA −2.1 (2.3) −5.8% NA P = 0.36 C: 36.9 (2.8) 37.8 (2.8) NA 0.8 (2.3) 2.2% NA 3 Janelsins et al., 2011 (32) I: 72.6 (25.6) 76.4 (42.8) NA 3.8 (27.3) 5.2% NA P > 0.05 C: 92.2 (39.0) 101.3 (50.0) NA 9.1 (36.4) 9.9% NA 4 Lee et al., 2013 (33) I: 6.2 (5.1) 7.3 (6.3) NA NA 17.0% P = 0.35 NA IGFBP2 (ng.mL−1) 1 Schmitz et al., 2005 (35)a I: 421.7 (29.5) 449.6 (29.4) NA 27.9 (16.8) 6.6% NA P = 0.30 C: 472.9 (29.0) 476.5 (29.1) NA 3.6 (16.4) 0.8% NA IGFBP3 (ng.mL−1) 1 Fairey et al., 2003 (29) I: 2160.8 (421.1) 2264.2 (435.4) NA 103.4 (224.7) 4.8% NA P = 0.021 C: 2146.2 (438.2) 2069.1 (478.4) NA −77.1 (313.5) −3.6 NA 2 Schmitz et al., 2005 (35)a I: 4339.7 (133.2) 4356.2 (132.7) NA 16.5 (85.9) 0.4% NA P = 0.32 C: 4519.7 (130.9) 4655.1 (131.0) NA 135.3 (83.8) 3.0% NA 3 Irwin et al., 2009 (31)b I: 4150.0 (160.0) 3980.0 (160.0) NA −190.0 (80.0) −4.1% NA P = 0.006 C: 4480.0 (170.0) 4610.0 (180.0) NA 150.0 (100.0) 2.9% NA 4 Janelsins et al., 2011 (32) I: 39.2 (6.3) 40.1 (7.3) NA 0.9 (3.1) 2.3% NA P > 0.05 C: 40.8 (13.6) 40.1 (15.1) NA −0.7 (3.8) −1.7% NA 5 Lee et al., 2013 (33) I: 2670.0 (1480.0) 3480.0 (1000.0) NA NA 30.3% P = 0.013 NA 6 Santa Mina et al., I (A): 5582.7 (1514.3) 4770.4 (2579.1) 4259.8 (1349.2) NA (1–2)−14.6% (1–2) P = 0.794 2013 (34) (1–3)−23.7% (1–3) P ≤ 0.05 (1–3) P = 0.043 (2–3)−10.7% I (R): 4360.5 (1370.9) 4321.3 (1205.5) 4887.9 (1639.7) NA (1–2)−0.9% (1–3) 12.1% (1–3) P ≤ 0.05 (2–3) 13.1%
February 2016
Volume 25, Issue 2
Volume 25, Issue 2
The Influence of Exercise on the Insulin-like Growth Factor Axis in Oncology: Physiological Basis, Current, and Future Perspectives
Jump to section
- Article
- Abstract
- Physiologic Basis of the Insulin-like Growth Factor Axis in Oncology
- Search Strategy
- Current Scope of the IGF Axis Response to Exercise in Oncology
- Mechanistic Insights and Future Perspectives Regarding Exercise and the IGF Axis in Oncology
- Conclusions and Summary of Future Directions
- Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
- References
- Figures & Data
- Info & Metrics
Advertisement